Lurie v. Wolin
2017 IL App (1st) 161571
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Derek and Steven Lurie (American Escrow) sued attorney Philip Wolin and Wolin, Kelter & Rosen for legal malpractice based on advice given 2003–2009; original complaint filed October 2010.
- The circuit court dismissed without prejudice April 1, 2011, set deadline May 9, 2011, for an amended complaint; further briefing and extensions followed.
- An August 18, 2011 order dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to file; counsel Richard Zachary later presented an amended complaint and motion to reconsider bearing file-stamps of May 9, 2011 and September 19, 2011.
- Court docket and clerk records showed no filings on those dates and no filing fee paid; the court initially treated the stamped dates as filed and granted reconsideration, then entered substantive rulings and dismissal on other grounds (Jan. 29, 2013).
- After appellate reversal on pleadings issues, defendants sought an evidentiary hearing on whether Zachary falsified file-stamps and whether the trial court had lost jurisdiction on September 19, 2011 by virtue of no timely motion to reconsider.
- The trial court found Zachary falsified file-stamps (fraud on the court), concluded it lacked jurisdiction after the September 19, 2011 deadline, vacated post-August 18, 2011 orders, and dismissed the case with prejudice; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred relitigation of the court's jurisdiction after the prior appeal | Law-of-the-case prevents reopening; circuit court already implicitly found jurisdiction in 2012 and that became settled | Doctrine does not prevent reconsideration when fraud on the court is alleged; defendants raised jurisdictional defect on remand | Law-of-the-case applies generally, but exception for fraud on the court allows reconsideration; court exercised discretion to consider jurisdictional claim |
| Whether Zachary forged or falsified filing date stamps on the amended complaint and motion to reconsider | Luries (Zachary) testified documents were timely filed (may cite clerk conversation and file-stamps) | Defendants produced court docket/records showing no electronic or clerk entry and evidence of Zachary’s pattern of falsifying filings | Trial court found Zachary not credible and defendants credible; concluded documents were falsified (finding not against manifest weight) |
| Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction after September 19, 2011 for failure to timely file a motion to reconsider | Luries: court previously treated stamped filing as timely; appellate process already decided merits without jurisdiction objection | Defendants: because motion to reconsider was not actually filed/timely, the court lost jurisdiction on the deadline and subsequent orders are void | Court held it lost jurisdiction on Sept. 19, 2011; post–that date orders were vacated and dismissal with prejudice was affirmed |
| Standard of review on factual credibility and whether findings were against manifest weight | Luries: factual finding of falsification is not supported and should be reversed | Defendants: trial court saw witnesses/exhibits; credibility determinations should stand | Appellate court: factual findings based on credibility are not reversed unless against manifest weight; here findings are supported and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (1983) (law of the case doctrine governs subsequent stages of same case)
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (law of the case promotes finality and efficiency)
- Wolfe v. Industrial Comm’n, 138 Ill. App. 3d 680 (1985) (a prior implicit jurisdictional ruling can become law of the case)
- Rojas v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 406 Ill. App. 3d 965 (2010) (subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived by parties — discussed tension with law-of-the-case)
- LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (federal courts apply law-of-the-case to jurisdictional questions)
- USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 647 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2011) (no jurisdiction exception to law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 463 F.2d 268 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (court may set aside mandates procured by fraud on the court)